Reply #112: Many of these points have already been answered in other posts.

[library_max]

Regarding plutonium, why not? It's only a question of degree, not a question of principle.

The problem with reasonable restrictions and regulations is that they don't work. They are riddled with loopholes. Someone without a criminal record buys a gun legally and then sells it for a profit under the table - that's what happened at Columbine. Nothing short of a nationwide ban is going to work.

Again, you can make booze in a bathtub, you can make PCP in a garbage can. You can't make an effective firearm without at least a kit. And you can smuggle a million bucks worth of cocaine in a briefcase. And people don't get addicted to guns. The war on drugs and prohibition are a lousy analogy for gun control.

You can't do a drive-by with a knife. You can't snipe with a baseball bat. You can't stab up a Luby's with an ice pick. Many kinds of violent crimes carried out in public would be stopped by bystanders if there was no gun. Also, wounds from hand weapons are more surviveable, especially since there would probably be fewer of them (you hardly ever hear about single gunshots, except in the case of accidents and snipers). And a tire-iron isn't likely to go off by accident, or be used by kids in a game of cops and robbers. And you can't change a tire or cut a steak or hit a baseball or chop up ice with a gun. They're only good for shooting at people or animals.